Background: The current model used to preoperatively stratify endometrial cancer (EC) patients into low- and high-risk groups is based on histotype, grade, and imaging method and is not optimal. Our study aims to prove whether a new model incorporating immunohistochemical markers, L1CAM, ER, PR, p53, obtained from preoperative biopsy could help refine stratification and thus the choice of adequate surgical extent and appropriate adjuvant treatment. Materials and Methods: The following data were prospectively collected from patients operated for EC from January 2016 through August 2018: age, pre- and post-operative histology, grade, lymphovascular space invasion, L1CAM, ER, PR, p53, imaging parameters obtained from ultrasound, CT chest/abdomen, final FIGO stage, and current decision model (based on histology, grade, imaging method). Results: In total, 132 patients were enrolled. The current model revealed 48% sensitivity and 89% specificity for high-risk group determination. In myometrial invasion >50%, lower levels of ER (p = 0.024), PR (0.048), and higher levels of L1CAM (p = 0.001) were observed; in cervical involvement a higher expression of L1CAM (p = 0.001), lower PR (p = 0.014); in tumors with positive LVSI, higher L1CAM (p = 0.014); in cases with positive LN, lower expression of ER/PR (p < 0.001), higher L1CAM (p = 0.002) and frequent mutation of p53 (p = 0.008). Cut-offs for determination of high-risk tumors were established: ER <78% (p = 0.001), PR <88% (p = 0.008), and L1CAM ≥4% (p < 0.001). The positive predictive values (PPV) for ER, PR, and L1CAM were 87% (60.8-96.5%), 63% (52.1-72.8%), 83% (70.5-90.8%); the negative predictive values (NPV) for each marker were as follows: 59% (54.5-63.4%), 65% (55.6-74.0%), and 77% (67.3-84.2%). Mutation of p53 revealed PPV 94% (67.4-99.1%) and NPV 61% (56.1-66.3%). When immunohistochemical markers were included into the current diagnostic model, sensitivity improved (48.4 vs. 75.8%, p < 0.001). PPV was similar for both methods, while NPV (i.e., the probability of extremely low risk in negative test cases) was improved (66 vs. 78.9%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: We proved superiority of new proposed model using immunohistochemical markers over standard clinical practice and that new proposed model increases accuracy of prognosis prediction. We propose wider implementation and validation of the proposed model.

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics University Hospital in Brno and Masaryk University Brno Czechia

Department of Internal Medicine Hematology and Oncology University Hospital in Brno and Masaryk University Brno Czechia

Department of Pathology University Hospital in Brno and Masaryk University Brno Czechia

Faculty of Medicine Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses Masaryk University Brno Czechia

Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Czechia

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Kurman RJ. International Agency for Research on Cancer World Health Organization (eds.). WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; (2014).

Salvesen HB, Haldorsen IS, Trovik J. Markers for individualised therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet Oncol. (2012) 13:e353–61. 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70213-9 PubMed DOI

Dedes KJ, Wetterskog D, Ashworth A, Kaye SB, Reis-Filho JS. Emerging therapeutic targets in endometrial cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2011) 8:261–71. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.216 PubMed DOI

Abu-Rustum NR, Barakat RR. Observations on the role of circumflex iliac node resection and the etiology of lower extremity lymphedema following pelvic lymphadenectomy for gynecologic malignancy. Gynecol Oncol. (2007) 106:4–5. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.03.026 PubMed DOI

Weinberger V, Cibula D, Zikan M. Lymphocele: prevalence and management in gynecological malignancies. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. (2014) 14:307–17. 10.1586/14737140.2014.866043 PubMed DOI

Zeimet AG, Reimer D, Huszar M, Winterhoff B, Puistola U, Azim SA, et al. . L1CAM in early-stage type I endometrial cancer: results of a large multicenter evaluation. J Natl Cancer Inst. (2013) 105:1142–50. 10.1093/jnci/djt144 PubMed DOI

van der Putten LJ, Visser NC, van de Vijver K, Santacana M, Bronsert P, Bulten J, et al. . L1CAM expression in endometrial carcinomas: an ENITEC collaboration study. Br J Cancer. (2016) 115:716–24. 10.1038/bjc.2016.235 PubMed DOI PMC

Visser NCM, Bulten J, van der Wurff AAM, Boss EA, Bronkhorst CM, Feijen HWH, et al. . PIpelle Prospective ENDOmetrial carcinoma (PIPENDO) study, pre-operative recognition of high risk endometrial carcinoma: a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Cancer. (2015) 15:487. 10.1186/s12885-015-1487-3 PubMed DOI PMC

Hua T, Liu S, Xin X, Jin Z, Liu Q, Chi S, et al. . Prognostic significance of L1 cell adhesion molecule in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:85196–207. 10.18632/oncotarget.13236 PubMed DOI PMC

Van Gool IC, Stelloo E, Nout RA, Nijman HW, Edmondson RJ, Church DN, et al. . Prognostic significance of L1CAM expression and its association with mutant p53 expression in high-risk endometrial cancer. Mod Pathol. (2016) 29:174–81. 10.1038/modpathol.2015.147 PubMed DOI

Lin MY, Dobrotwir A, McNally O, Abu-Rustum NR, Narayan K. Role of imaging in the routine management of endometrial cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. (2018) 143 (Suppl. 2):109–17. 10.1002/ijgo.12618 PubMed DOI PMC

Frühauf F, Dvorák M, Haaková L, Hašlík L, Herboltová P, Chaloupková B, et al. . [Ultrasound staging of endometrial cancer - recommended methodology of examination]. Ceska Gynekol. (2014) 79:466–76. PubMed

Fischerova D. Ultrasound scanning of the pelvis and abdomen for staging of gynecological tumors: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. (2011) 38:246–66. 10.1002/uog.10054 PubMed DOI

Fischerova D, Frühauf F, Zikan M, Pinkavova I, Kocián R, Dundr P, et al. . Factors affecting sonographic preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. (2014) 43:575–85. 10.1002/uog.13248 PubMed DOI

Eriksson LSE, Lindqvist PG, Flöter Rådestad A, Dueholm M, Fischerova D, Franchi D, et al. . Transvaginal ultrasound assessment of myometrial and cervical stromal invasion in women with endometrial cancer: interobserver reproducibility among ultrasound experts and gynecologists. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. (2015) 45:476–82. 10.1002/uog.14645 PubMed DOI

Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol. (2008) 9:297–303. 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70074-3 PubMed DOI

FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and corpus uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. (2014) 125:97–8. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.003 PubMed DOI

Leisenring W, Alonzo T, Pepe MS. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics. (2000) 56:345–51. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00345.x PubMed DOI

Cancer Genome Atlas Research N. Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD, Akbani R, Liu Y, et al. . Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. (2013) 497:67–73. 10.1038/nature12113 PubMed DOI PMC

Rossi EC, Kowalski LD, Scalici J, Cantrell L, Schuler K, Hanna RK, et al. . A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): A multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. (2017) 18:384–92. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30068-2 PubMed DOI

Abu-Rustum NR, Gomez JD, Alektiar KM, Soslow RA, Hensley ML, Leitao MM, Jr, et al. . The incidence of isolated paraaortic nodal metastasis in surgically staged endometrial cancer patients with negative pelvic lymph nodes. Gynecol Oncol. (2009) 115:236–8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.07.016 PubMed DOI

Gilks CB, Oliva E, Soslow RA. Poor interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. (2013) 37:874–81. 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31827f576a PubMed DOI

Clarke BA, Gilks CB. Endometrial carcinoma: controversies in histopathological assessment of grade and tumour cell type. J Clin Pathol. (2010) 63:410–5. 10.1136/jcp.2009.071225 PubMed DOI

Hussein YR, Broaddus R, Weigelt B, Levine DA, Soslow RA. The genomic heterogeneity of FIGO grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma impacts diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility. Int J Gynecol Pathol. (2016) 35:16–24. 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000212 PubMed DOI PMC

Han G, Sidhu D, Duggan MA, Arseneau J, Cesari M, Clement PB, et al. . Reproducibility of histological cell type in high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Mod Pathol. (2013) 26:1594–604. 10.1038/modpathol.2013.102 PubMed DOI

Alkushi A, Kobel M, Kalloger SE, Gilks CB. High-grade endometrial carcinoma: serous and grade 3 endometrioid carcinomas have different immunophenotypes and outcomes. Int J Gynecol Pathol. (2010) 29:343–50. 10.1097/PGP.0b013e3181cd6552 PubMed DOI

Van Holsbeke C, Ameye L, Testa AC, Mascilini F, Lindqvist P, Fischerova D, et al. . Development and external validation of new ultrasound-based mathematical models for preoperative prediction of high-risk endometrial cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. (2014) 43:586–95. 10.1002/uog.13216 PubMed DOI

Antonsen SL, Jensen LN, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Costa J, Tabor A, et al. . MRI, PET/CT and ultrasound in the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer - a multicenter prospective comparative study. Gynecol Oncol. (2013) 128:300–8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.025 PubMed DOI

Savelli L, Ceccarini M, Ludovisi M, Fruscella E, De Iaco PA, Salizzoni E, et al. . Preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer: transvaginal sonography vs. magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. (2008) 31:560–6. 10.1002/uog.5295 PubMed DOI

Akbayir O, Corbacioglu A, Numanoglu C, Guleroglu FY, Ulker V, Akyol A, et al. . Preoperative assessment of myometrial and cervical invasion in endometrial carcinoma by transvaginal ultrasound. Gynecol Oncol. (2011) 122:600–3. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.041 PubMed DOI

Sawicki W, Spiewankiewicz B, Stelmachów J, Cendrowski K. The value of ultrasonography in preoperative assessment of selected prognostic factors in endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. (2003) 24:293–8. 10.1002/uog.14905 PubMed DOI

Alcazar JL, Pineda L, Martinez-Astorquiza Corral T, Orozco R, Utrilla-Layna J, Juez L, et al. . Transvaginal/transrectal ultrasound for assessing myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: a comparison of six different approaches. J Gynecol Oncol. (2015) 26:201–7. 10.3802/jgo.2015.26.3.201 PubMed DOI PMC

Mascilini F, Testa AC, Van Holsbeke C, Ameye L, Timmerman D, Epstein E. Evaluating myometrial and cervical invasion in women with endometrial cancer: comparing subjective assessment with objective measurement techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. (2013) 42:353–8. 10.1002/uog.12499 PubMed DOI

Frühauf F, Zikan M, Semeradova I, Dundr P, Nemejcova K, Dusek L, et al. . The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in assessment of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: subjective assessment versus objective techniques. Biomed Res Int. (2017) 2017:1318203. 10.1155/2017/1318203 PubMed DOI PMC

Gong Y, Wang Q, Dong L, Jia Y, Hua C, Mi F, et al. . Different imaging techniques for the detection of pelvic lymph nodes metastasis from gynecological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. (2016) 8:14107–25. 10.18632/oncotarget.12959 PubMed DOI PMC

Lampe B, Kürzl R, Hantschmann P. Reliability of tumor typing of endometrial carcinoma in prehysterectomy curettage. Int J Gynecol Pathol. (1995) 14:2–6. PubMed

Frumovitz M, Singh DK, Meyer L, Smith DH, Wertheim I, Resnik E, et al. . Predictors of final histology in patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. (2004) 95:463–8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.07.016 PubMed DOI

Leitao MM, Kehoe S, Barakat RR, Alektiar K, Gattoc LP, Rabbitt C, et al. . Accuracy of preoperative endometrial sampling diagnosis of FIGO grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. (2008) 111:244–8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.033 PubMed DOI

Stelloo E, Nout RA, Naves LCLM, Ter Haar NT, Creutzberg CL, Smit VTHBM, et al. . High concordance of molecular tumor alterations between pre-operative curettage and hysterectomy specimens in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. (2014) 133:197–204. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.012 PubMed DOI

Bosse T, Nout RA, Stelloo E, Dreef E, Nijman HW, Jürgenliemk-Schulz IM, et al. . L1 cell adhesion molecule is a strong predictor for distant recurrence and overall survival in early stage endometrial cancer: pooled PORTEC trial results. Eur J Cancer. (2014) 50:2602–10. 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.07.014 PubMed DOI

Amant F, Mirza MR, Koskas M, Creutzberg CL. Cancer of the corpus uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstetr. (2018) 143:37–50. 10.1002/ijgo.12612 PubMed DOI

van der Putten LJM, Visser NCM, van de Vijver K, Santacana M, Bronsert P, Bulten J, et al. . Added value of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and L1 cell adhesion molecule expression to histology-based endometrial carcinoma recurrence prediction models: an ENITEC collaboration study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. (2018) 28:514–23. 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001187 PubMed DOI

Trovik J, Wik E, Werner HMJ, Krakstad C, Helland H, Vandenput I, et al. . Hormone receptor loss in endometrial carcinoma curettage predicts lymph node metastasis and poor outcome in prospective multicentre trial. Eur J Cancer. (2013) 49:3431–41. 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.06.016 PubMed DOI

Biomarker, Guided Treatment in Gynaecological Cancer - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials,.gov Available online at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02543710 (accessed March 28, 2017).

PORTEC-4a Molecular Profile-based Versus Standard Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Endometrial Cancer - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov. Available online at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03469674 (accessed March 19, 2018).

Tangen IL, Kopperud RK, Visser NC, Staff AC, Tingulstad S, Marcickiewicz J, et al. . Expression of L1CAM in curettage or high L1CAM level in preoperative blood samples predicts lymph node metastases and poor outcome in endometrial cancer patients. Br J Cancer. (2017) 117:840–7. 10.1038/bjc.2017.235 PubMed DOI PMC

Geels YP, Pijnenborg JMA, Gordon BBM, Fogel M, Altevogt P, Masadah R, et al. . L1CAM expression is related to non-endometrioid histology, and prognostic for poor outcome in endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. Pathol Oncol Res. (2016) 22:863–8. 10.1007/s12253-016-0047-8 PubMed DOI PMC

Jongen V, Briët J, de Jong R, ten Hoor K, Boezen M, van der Zee A, et al. . Expression of estrogen receptor-alpha and -beta and progesterone receptor-A and -B in a large cohort of patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. (2009) 112:537–42. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.10.032 PubMed DOI

External validation study of endometrial cancer preoperative risk stratification model (ENDORISK)

Tumor Characteristic Variations between Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Endometrial Cancer